3d6 in order....

[hogarth]

Really?

Really, really?

*sigh*

Dexterity
Defensive Adjustment applies to a character's saving throws (see Glossary) against attacks that can be dodged--lightning bolts, boulders, etc. It also modifies the character's Armor Class.

Wisdom
Magical Defense Adjustment listed on Table 5 applies to saving throws against magical spells that attack the mind: beguiling, charm, fear, hypnosis, illusions, possession, suggestion, etc. These bonuses and penalties are applied automatically, without any conscious effort from the character.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have high stats the Romans ever done for us?

[Grek]

no, you are stupid and just dont understand the game s all this proves. nobody would roll all 6s or all 16s. the point is the average range, visavis the rolls above being so close to later point arrays...

learn something about statistics. all6s is comparable to all 15s statistically speaking, both are as unlikely as the other.

both are in the 4th position from the ends of the scale.

[Parthenon]

The real question is why anyone would like it. I can't see many positives to it.

This.

I can sort of see that it is about you roleplaying what you get from the dice, and having the 'realistic' part of an actual character rather than whatever you want. The same way that computer games where the protagonist has a character are often better at characterisation than ones where you can create any character.

As in Deus Ex Human Revolution's specific main character is inherently more interesting than Fallout's widely customisable character.

But if you want that, you can get better effects with more balanced groups by having the DM just give you specific PCs. And the effect is lessened by being a TTRPG rather than a computer game since the DM can adapt the story while the video game can't.

[MisterDee]

You can't play the kind of character you want to play. If you wanted a fighter but rolled crap strength, well tough shit, you're playing a rogue or a wizard.

That is the crux of the issue. Ultimately, it sucks to be forced to play a class you don't like.

That said, even if you were willing to take anything the dice gave you...

Most of the time, you'd only be able to pick between some of the following classes:

Fighter
Mage (generalist)
Cleric¸
Thief

With some luck, or if your DM allowed you to pick your race after rolling ability scores, you could be one of the various specialist mages, or maybe a druid or a bard.

Forget about ever playing anything else. It's just not happening.

Now, of your four likely choices...

A fighter could be relatively survivable. Sure, it would probably suck, but with a solid HP roll and especially a good money roll you could probably survive the early levels. But it's a decent option as you're at least plausibly useful in the early game.

The generalist mage is a trap option. They were flat-out weaker than specialists, and if you can't qualify for a specialist mage, then you have neither 15 Dex nor 15 Con, which means your mage has sucky AC and HP, which means he'll die during the first encounter. (Plus, of course, having less than super-high intelligence meant that your mage would be limited to a handful of spells per level, most of which would not be the ones you'd first pick because you have a low chance to learn spells.)

And, of course, without a high intelligence you can't even hope to get the high-level spells. So you'd suck horribly at low levels, even more so than usual in AD&D, only to be denied the ultimate cosmic power at the end.

The Cleric would be survivable too. He'd be basically a less-good fighter for the first few levels, but once he starts getting decent spells he gets going. With even a modest amount of strength or constitution, he can match the fighter in survivability, but he has a much better upside.

Unlike the wizard who's completely crippled by less-than-genius intelligence, the cleric can do well with a moderate wisdom. So really, not a bad option (especially since everybody else in the party is praying for a swift death and a reroll, so you don't have to memorize cure spells)

The thief would be survivable, but useless. (So, not that differrent from all AD&D thieves, really.) Without a very high dexterity, you have to wear the best armor you can, so your skills are penalized to irrelevancy. Plus, without a high dex, you don't get your bonus to ranged attacks.

So you're a super-fragile ersatz fighter. At best.

The truth is, you'd only want to be a thief if you had high dex, but couldn't qualify for anything else. A fighter or cleric with high dex would be much better, an Alteration specialist potentially good (he'd only need a moderately high intelligence to be able to pick most of the spells he wants, and there are some good options in Alteration)

So... yeah. That sounds like a fun game.

[deaddmwalking]

people are less interested in playing the GAME, and more interested in emulating some character from some other place.

Playing a character in a fantasy world is the game.

Some people are fine with playing something random every time. Other people have specific ideas of what they want to play.

The character I play may not be from another place, but it may be inspired by something I've seen, or a mini I've painted, or a concept in my mind.

But because it's a game, people should play it in the way that is fun for them.

3d6 in order isn't fun for me. I've never played with anyone who actually liked that. We've spent far more time figuring out ways that we did enjoy generating attributes than using the 3d6 in order.

We've done:
1) 3d6 in order
2) 3d6 arrange as desired
3) 4d6 drop the lowest in order
4) 4d6 drop the lowest arrange as desired (probably most often)
5) Everybody roll 4d6 drop the lowest (including DM) for each attribute. Pool all attributes and 'draft' (dropping the lowest from each attribute).

In 3.x, #5 is our current preferred option. If someone wants to play a Wizard, they'll take the highest Intelligence, for instance. The next person to pick might take the highest Dexterity, etc. Eventually we have all the scores assigned and everyone is relatively 'equal'.

It makes character creation a fun group activity that results in an output that we enjoy (relatively balanced characters with every character being good at the things most important to them).

[shadzar]

but if you dont want the risk of rolling low, then why roll at all? why not just assign 18s to everything? why even have ability scores. just further the d20 system to take 10 or have ONE number that does everything, say the BaB is rolled for everything. why bother with those other things if you don't want the risk associated with an RNG?

oft times people complain that there were no options in pre-WotC and that feats exist to give player more customization of their character so that fighter A was minorly different than fighter B, so what reall customization is had by having the ability scores in the first place? wouldnt it be more fair to have everyone with 18s in everything, or jsut the on number like BaB for the character to have on a d20 and either limited uses of "take 10" or roll the d20 to see if it works for this one number?

IF the ability scores are that much in the nterest of offering option to customize your fighter from the enxt guys, then why need feats to add customization?

just drop rolling completely and assign whatever number in the allowed systems range for the score. that gives the MOST control over your character doesnt it?

the RNG being present surely takes a major part of character control away from the player.

[infected slut princess]

Shadzar rolled a 3 for his CHA

[Kaelik]

but if you dont want the risk of rolling low, then why roll at all?

just drop rolling completely and assign whatever number in the allowed systems range for the score. that gives the MOST control over your character doesnt it?

the RNG being present surely takes a major part of character control away from the player.

If only there were some kind of method for generating attributes that are completely in the players control, but still create balanced characters. Perhaps you could somehow buy attributes with points, in order to get the distribution you want without everyone just choosing 18 for everything. It would create differentiation amongst characters without taking control.

It really is too bad such a thing is impossible. I bet if we could invent such a crazy thing and call it point buy it would be the most common and preferred method of attribute generation in D&D since 2000.

[deaddmwalking]

but if you dont want the risk of rolling low, then why roll at all?

If I didn't want any risk of rolling low, I wouldn't roll. What I want to avoid is one character with all low abilities and another with all high abilities. Point Buy is one way to do that, but that's not my preferred method. Another way to do that is an array (say 17, 15, 13, 11, 10, 8) - then everyone arranges to suit. The thing is, having characters that have no weaknesses isn't particularly interesting. Having a character that has no strengths is also not particularly interesting. Having characters that are balanced against each other but have a mix of strengths helps make for a dynamic game.

So, I'll take your question as a Straw Man.

why not just assign 18s to everything? why even have ability scores. just further the d20 system to take 10 or have ONE number that does everything, say the BaB is rolled for everything. why bother with those other things if you don't want the risk associated with an RNG?

I'll take this as a Slippery Slope. If you had a single number, then some people would be 'good' at said number, and some people would be 'bad' at said number. Or maybe everyone would be exactly equal. Cookie-cutter characters are boring, whether they're objectively 'good' or objectively 'bad'. D&D is a class based game, and there is an assumption that, ideally, while every character has something to contribute in every aspect of the game, their specific contributions will differ at least in function. If everyone does the same thing, it's boring.

oft times people complain that there were no options in pre-WotC and that feats exist to give player more customization of their character so that fighter A was minorly different than fighter B, so what reall customization is had by having the ability scores in the first place?

Assuming you're not being disingenuous, there is differentiation based on attributes. A high Strength fighter will have different options and benefits than a high Dexterity fighter. Attributes are the foundation on which the other aspects are built.

wouldnt it be more fair to have everyone with 18s in everything, or jsut the on number like BaB for the character to have on a d20 and either limited uses of "take 10" or roll the d20 to see if it works for this one number?

It might be more fair, but it would also be boring. Don't be stupid. Real people have strengths and weaknesses. Interesting characters also have strengths and weaknesses. But there's lots of reasons to want to choose your strengths and weaknesses if you're going to play a particular character.

For example, I'm a relatively intelligent fellow. I could try to play a low-intelligence character, but I sometimes find it difficult not to contribute ideas that I might come up with but that my character probably should not.

IF the ability scores are that much in the nterest of offering option to customize your fighter from the enxt guys, then why need feats to add customization?

Because there doesn't have to be a limit to the amount of customization. Sometimes my characters have blue eyes, sometimes they have brown eyes. I like differences between my characters. Having a strong fighter with brown eyes that focuses on tripping and a strong fighter with brown eyes that focuses on hitting opponents really hard is more difference than just two strong brown-eyed fighters. Differences are good. Having humans and elves and gnomes and dwarves and a dozen other races is also good for variety and customization. Variety is good. I like it, and I want as much of it as I can have. (As a caveat, I also like good variety - some feats shouldn't exist and some should be options that just everybody has access to).

just drop rolling completely and assign whatever number in the allowed systems range for the score. that gives the MOST control over your character doesnt it?

Yes, that would offer more control. But it's not really fun, either. Which is more fun - getting a present that's exactly what you want or picking out a present yourself? Sometimes if you get yourself exactly what you want, you can feel a little guilty. What if it's too extravagant? But if someone makes the decision for you, then you can feel good about it.

It doesn't have to be about perfect control to be good. It's about having enough control to ensure you have options that you're comfortable with.

the RNG being present surely takes a major part of character control away from the player.

I don't follow this part. Characters (and people) accept that they won't always achieve success just because they want to. I want a promotion at work. Not getting what I want all the time is a part of life. The game wouldn't be fun if there was no chance of failure. It's also no fun if there is no chance of success. It's a balancing act. 3d6 is too close to 'no chance of success' for my taste.

Fortunately, there are other options that are much more likely to achieve success without going to 'no chance of failure at all'.

So, you tell me - considering that people have provided a few reasons they don't like 3d6 in order, are you prepared to admit that they have points? Or can you explain why 3d6 in order is the best and we just fail to understand?

[Voss]

So everyone knows about it and everyone hates it, but where does the dislike for rolling 3d6 in order for ability scores come from?

pre-3rd you didnt get mass bonuses for ability scores, and many people on here dont like ability checks in favor of d20 system anyway.

so where did the min/max even come from so 3d6 in order wouldnt work? were that many people sad they couldn't play a paladin, ranger or bard?

shadzar, shadzar, shadzar. The alternate rolling schemes, including things like 30d6, assign in pools to stats with a minimum of 3d6 and keep the 3 highest rolls for each... those all started in first edition. There was a big section towards the back of Unearthed Arcana with a giant pile of alternate dice rolling approaches (somewhere around the random social class tables).

This wasn't a evil 'modernist' invention of people who played editions of the game you don't like. This was all Gary, at the height of his power.

And kept for second, as well.

Rolling Ability Scores

Let's first see how to generate ability scores for your character, after which definitions of each ability will be given.

The six ability scores are determined randomly by rolling six-sided dice to obtain a score from 3 to 18. There are several methods for rolling up these scores.

Method I: Roll three six-sided dice (3d6); the total shown on the dice is your character's Strength ability score. Repeat this for Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Chrisma, in that order. This method gives a range of scores from 3 to 18, with most results in the 9 to 12 range. Only a few characters have high scores (15 and above), so you should treasure these characters.

Alternative Dice-Rolling Methods

Method I creates characters whose ability scores are usually between 9 and 12. If you would rather play a character of truly heroic proportions, ask your DM if he allows players to use optional methods for rolling up characters. These optional methods are designed to produce above-average characters.

Method II: Roll 3d6 twice, noting the total of each roll. Use whichever result you prefer for your character's Strength score. Repeat this for Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. This allows you to pick the best score from each pair, generally ensuring that your character does not have any really low ability scores (but low ability scores are not all that bad any way!).

Method III: Roll 3d6 six times and jot down the total for each roll. Assign the scores to your character's six abilities however you want. This gives you the chance to custom-tailor your character, although you are not guaranteed high scores.

Method IV: Roll 3d6 twelve times and jot down all twelve totals. Choose six of these rolls (generally the six best rolls) and assign them to your character's abilities however you want. This combines the best of methods II and III, but takes somewhat longer.

As an example, Joan rolls 3d6 twelve times and gets results of 12, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 9, 12, 6, 11, 10, and 7. She chooses the six best rolls (15, 12, 12, 11, 10, and 10) and then assigns them to her character's abilities so as to create the strengths and weaknesses that she wants her character to have (see the ability descriptions following this section for explanations of the abilities).

Method V: Roll four six-sided dice (4d6). Discard the lowest die and total the remaining three. Repeat this five more times, then assign the six numbers to the character's abilities however you want. This is a fast method that gives you a good character, but you can still get low scores (after all, you could roll 1s on all four dice!).

Method VI: This method can be used if you want to create a specific type of character. It does not guarantee that you will get the character you want, but it will improve your chances.

Each ability starts with a score of 8. Then roll seven dice. These dice can be added to your character's abilities as you wish. All the points on a die must be added to the same ability score. For example, if a 6 is rolled on one die, all 6 points must be assigned to one ability. You can add as many dice as you want to any ability, but no ability score can exceed 18 points. If you cannot make an 18 by exact count on the dice, you cannot have an 18 score.

[darkmaster]

Just like in real life you don't get to choose how strong and tough you are, and you have to make the most of what the Random Number Generator gave you.

Ok, I can't speak to what shadzar things because I have him on ignore and just read around him. But this is bull. The fact is in real life you verifiably CAN change your stats. You get stronger by lifting weights, you get smarter by studying logic and learning techniques, you get more dexterous by taking ballet or something, you become wiser by contemplating the universe. And since in universe player characters don't just spring from the ether their starting stats must be a product of their background and conditioning. And while I can certainly agree that people can be predisposed to certain things I can't buy that their upbringing doesn't have something to do with that.

[shadzar]

except you dont get to choose what you are born with. the scores arent the only degree to which you can grow in the game. it is assumed you have been doing things to train a class, not jsut fresh off the turnip truck. now often that is discarded, but those things offered by the class is what you get. the human with STR:25 that claims to be the strongest human alive, doesnt go off adventuring. but this could really get into things like multiclassing silliness like in 3rd and all that so i wont delve too deep.

but the fact that there is an average of 9~10 means that those scores above represent that work to be studying and exercising, etc.

but if you dont want the risk of rolling low, then why roll at all?

If I didn't want any risk of rolling low, I wouldn't roll. What I want to avoid is one character with all low abilities and another with all high abilities. Point Buy is one way to do that, but that's not my preferred method. Another way to do that is an array (say 17, 15, 13, 11, 10, 8) - then everyone arranges to suit. The thing is, having characters that have no weaknesses isn't particularly interesting. Having a character that has no strengths is also not particularly interesting. Having characters that are balanced against each other but have a mix of strengths helps make for a dynamic game.

So, I'll take your question as a Straw Man.

then the rest you say is pointless. if you want hundreds of feats and other things to tweak the customization of a character, then why even bother rolling. just give everyone that single stat and let it be 18. that is in effect what the "Take 10" rule does.

also a problem is you are trying to play a competitive game.

characters that are balanced against each other

the PCs dont have to balance against each other on any scale. they arent the ones opposing each other, in most games.

and giving everyone a single stat would mean they are balanced when that stat is the same number. 18=18

I'll take this as a Slippery Slope. If you had a single number, then some people would be 'good' at said number, and some people would be 'bad' at said number.

again 18=18

everyone wouldnt be doing the same thing because it isnt 4th edition we are talking about. i dont even think it offers 3d6 in order as an option. classes of real editions of D&D have different things for different people to do, but it seems people do not understand them is the norm for "modern gamers".

A high Strength fighter will have different options and benefits than a high Dexterity fighter.

prove this with examples from each edition, and be sure to include 4th edition in your examples.

It might be more fair, but it would also be boring. ~~~~
For example, I'm a relatively intelligent fellow. I could try to play a low-intelligence character, but I sometimes find it difficult not to contribute ideas that I might come up with but that my character probably should not.

then, dont be stupid. know when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut. if you are playing a game where your character speaks when you do, then you play to its INT and keep your mouth shut when something exceeds its INT. when you are playing a group-think game where the players exist outside the characters, then offer advice when asked or needed.

YOU must be intelligent enough to know when to keep your mouth shut and not go over the character limits.

same for the opposite, when a character would be smarter than the player about things, and they character would know more about the world they were born in than the player would; then the DM feeds info to the player to act off if.

wizard player walks into a room and the DM says you can see a faint glow on the walls and you know this to be X. it isnt like Wyatt in the D&D livestream where he jsut wanted to know the nifo found out by the other group right away, but the fighter wouldnt know this shit unless the wizard told everyone that he saw a glow on the walls meaning X, because the fighter character would have no knowledge of it.

Because there doesn't have to be a limit to the amount of customization.

not at YOUR table and game, but there does have to be a limit for the rules themselves unless you just want a bloated game with 1000 splatbooks.

how really does the eye color of your character contribute to the game? are you looking for a +1 bonus to some dice roll for it? do the other players really give a shit about your eye color?

none of the things you are talking about in this section have anything to do with ability scores, so why are you even saying them?

Yes, that would offer more control. But it's not really fun, either. Which is more fun - getting a present that's exactly what you want or picking out a present yourself? Sometimes if you get yourself exactly what you want, you can feel a little guilty. What if it's too extravagant? But if someone makes the decision for you, then you can feel good about it.

more fun to me would be getting exactly what i want as a present because i have a use for that rather than some moron picking something out that has no idea what it would be. this has nothing to do with D&D unless you are tying to connect it with treasure in some way, which has nothing to do with ability scores either.

it seems though that you like other people to think for your rather than thinking for yourself because you are unable to make decisions. everyone is not like that. i go to mcdonalds for a big mac, i expect a big mac, not the ignorant bitch cashier to try to give me a fillet o fish because she decided i would enjoy that.

The game wouldn't be fun if there was no chance of failure. It's also no fun if there is no chance of success. It's a balancing act. 3d6 is too close to 'no chance of success' for my taste.

now THIS is a perfect answer to the initial question, it explains what you want from the ability scores. you feel that your odds of getting something that could succeed is little to none, and you want better than normal averages maybe even better than 50:50 chance of success.

but really what fail:success ratio do you find acceptable?

why do lower scores make you feel that it would not succeed?

[Hicks]

Crazily enough, I'm halfway with Shadzar with this. I'm with him because 3d6 ability scores in order are fast to generate, but only halfway because that only applies to super deadly games where character generation speed is paramount AND where the bonuses are like:

3-5, +0
6-11, +1
12-17, +2
18, +3

...On a d20. The ability bonus needs to be completely ancillary to basically everything else.

[Voss]

And that reflects... no edition of D&D ever, so I'm not sure how that fits into to anything?

[Hicks]

It reflects OD&D and AD&D: you are an insane murder-hobo who greyhawks everything with any monetary value in a no save just die game.

[rampaging-poet]

Just like in real life you don't get to choose how strong and tough you are, and you have to make the most of what the Random Number Generator gave you.

Ok, I can't speak to what shadzar things because I have him on ignore and just read around him. But this is bull. The fact is in real life you verifiably CAN change your stats. You get stronger by lifting weights, you get smarter by studying logic and learning techniques, you get more dexterous by taking ballet or something, you become wiser by contemplating the universe. And since in universe player characters don't just spring from the ether their starting stats must be a product of their background and conditioning. And while I can certainly agree that people can be predisposed to certain things I can't buy that their upbringing doesn't have something to do with that.

"Just like in real life" was poor phrasing on my part, but as Shadzar pointed out before I could respond to this, in Second Editon (and possibly earlier) your rolled ability scores represent where your character ended up after putting in all that hard work to increase your Strength and Intelligence. Training and background definitely play a major role in development, but the entire point of 3d6 straight down the line is that you determine the results of a character's background before you determine their background. I see it as a creative writing exercise - given a random starting point, write a backstory that fits.

It was wrong for me to say that you're stuck with what the RNG gave you in real life. A better way to put it is that you're stuck playing whichever person the RNG decided to give you.

[deaddmwalking]

also a problem is you are trying to play a competitive game.

No... I prefer games where everyone can contribute in a relatively equal way. I've played in a couple of games where characters were of vastly different character levels, and I didn't enjoy them. If a monster represents a serious threat to everyone in the party except one person who easily stomps it, it quickly becomes 'the SUPER PC show'. That's not fun. If my contribution is not required, I'd prefer to play a game where I am helpful. If the contribution of the other characters is unnecessary, I'd prefer to retire my character and play on a more equal footing.

then, dont be stupid. know when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut.

Once again, this is a matter of fun for me. Choosing not to participate because I think my character would be unable to participate still means not participating. Since I enjoy playing my character in what I consider a realistic fashion (method), and I enjoy contributing to the success of my party, the two can be at odds if I have no say in my character's strengths and weaknesses. I'm not asking everyone to enjoy both of those aspects of play the way I do, but to your original question, I'm pointing out that the 3d6 in order hinders that form of enjoyment. Since that is what I enjoy most in a game, 3d6 actively hinders my enjoyment of the game.

not at YOUR table and game, but there does have to be a limit for the rules themselves unless you just want a bloated game with 1000 splatbooks.

how really does the eye color of your character contribute to the game? are you looking for a +1 bonus to some dice roll for it? do the other players really give a shit about your eye color?

none of the things you are talking about in this section have anything to do with ability scores, so why are you even saying them?

First off, there are differences between mechanical differences and 'fluff' differences. Eye color is fluff. I don't expect a mechanical benefit to choosing blue eyes over brown eyes. But I do expect that I'm able to choose whether my character has brown eyes or blue. While it may be purely cosmetic, it absolutely matters to me. I enjoy having a particular character as I envision the character to be. Now, I could try to pretend that my STR 3 fighter is actually really strong (say, I'm envisioning Arnold Swarzeneggar as Conan in my head) but every time I do poorly on a STR check, there will be an increasing amount of cognitive dissonance that will interfere with my enjoyment. Fortunately, I can avoid it by having a character that is ACTUALLY STRONG when I imagine playing a strong character.

more fun to me would be getting exactly what i want as a present because i have a use for that rather than some moron picking something out that has no idea what it would be.

You failed your reading comprehension check there. In both instances, you get exactly what you want. In the first case, you tell someone 'I want this' and they get it for you. In the second case, you don't tell someone what you want, but they happen to guess exactly what you want and get it for you. Either way, you get exactly what you want, but strangely, having someone 'guess' what you want is actually more satisfying. Obviously the disadvantage is that often people will guess incorrectly. But in the instance that they get it right, it is far more satisfying (to me, at least - and quite a few others, I'd wager) than if you tell someone exactly what to get.

Choosing ability scores for yourself is not as fun as randomly getting ability scores and yet, still getting exactly what you wanted.

That's why I prefer the character creation pool I discussed earlier.

it seems though that you like other people to think for your rather than thinking for yourself because you are unable to make decisions. everyone is not like that.

This follows from your failure at reading comprehension, but in any case, go suck a barrel of cocks you asshole.

The game wouldn't be fun if there was no chance of failure. It's also no fun if there is no chance of success. It's a balancing act. 3d6 is too close to 'no chance of success' for my taste.

now THIS is a perfect answer to the initial question, it explains what you want from the ability scores. you feel that your odds of getting something that could succeed is little to none, and you want better than normal averages maybe even better than 50:50 chance of success.

The chance of failure versus the chance of success should depend on the action in question. But when I'm playing a character, I want one that has what I feel is a reasonable chance of success in my chosen area of specialty. If I'm playing a Wizard, I want my spells to be likely to affect my chosen targets. If I'm a Fighter, I want my attacks to be likely to hit and deal significant damage. What I do not want is to be a Fighter that finds the Wizard can hit more often and for damage than I can due to his superior attributes.

[rampaging-poet]

if you want hundreds of feats and other things to tweak the customization of a character, then why even bother rolling. just give everyone that single stat and let it be 18. that is in effect what the "Take 10" rule does.

I'm sure this has been explained to you before, but "Take 10" is not the same as "always winning" or "never rolling". Taking 10 is a convienince for things your character should be able to just do, and the penalty for taking 10 is that you can never do any better than that. For example, a competent blacksmith in real life isn't goint to mess up making an iron nail often enough to care about, and the game represents that by letting him Take 10 on his check. If the same blacksmith is making something more complicated, a roll of 10 might not be high enough so he'd have to actually roll and risk failing.
Taking 10 gives you the average result and nothing better ever. In this context it's like letting a player pick have all 10 for his atributes instead of having to roll. That character won't have any weaknesses, but he won't have any strengths either.

the PCs dont have to balance against each other on any scale. they arent the ones opposing each other, in most games

Let's take a moment to think about that in-character. Suppose you and a few of your friends decide to risk your lives pulling treasure from the ruins outside town. You get into a few fights , and it quickly becomes clear that Bobby isn't pulling his weight. He can't seem to land a hit on anyone, he sets off traps everyone else avoided, and you constantly have to move into harm's way to cover him when he's injured. He may be your friend, but he clearly isn't cut out for this adventuring stuff. Every time you bring him into those ruins, he almost dies or gets you killed. Letting him tag along just isn't worth the risk!

Shadzar, you love to talk about how Dungeons and Dragons isn't a competition between characters, or even between the players and the DM - it's about exploring a fantasy world. Unfortunately, the parts of the fantasy world your characters are exploring are very dangerous. Most characters want to survive, so they want to be prepared when they go into dangerous situations. Relying on an incompetant ally is too dangerous in an adventurer's work. For that reason, the characters do need to be able to contribute roughly equally. In character, if someone isn't contributing enough then they are dead weight and it is suicidal to continue adventuring with them.

A high Strength fighter will have different options and benefits than a high Dexterity fighter.

prove this with examples from each edition, and be sure to include 4th edition in your examples.

In any edition, a high Strength fighter will deal more damage with melee attacks than a high Dexterity fighter. The high Dexterity fighter will generally have a better Armour Class. The high Strength fighter will be better at breaking down doors and the high Dexterity fighter will be better at crossing narrow ledges.
In Second Edition a high Dexterity fighter would be more likely to choose Non-weapon Proficiencies or Secondary Skills that require Dexterity checks because his high Dexterity makes him more likely to succeed.
In Third Edition having a high Dexterity opens up the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, so a high Dex fighter will be better at dual-wielding than a high Strength fighter. Conversely, the high Strength fighter has a bigger advantage when using two-handed weapons like greatswords and is better suited to grappling and bull-rushing than the high Dexterity fighter.
I don't know very much about First Edition, OD&D, or Fourth Edition, but there are at least two edition of Dungeons and Dragons (including the edition you constantly impose on everyone else) in which having a high Dexterity as a fighter gives different benefits than having a high Strength.

YOU must be intelligent enough to know when to keep your mouth shut and not go over the character limits.

same for the opposite, when a character would be smarter than the player about things, and they character would know more about the world they were born in than the player would; then the DM feeds info to the player to act off if.

I agree with this, but not everyone is good at roleplaying a character drastically different from themselves. Many people would enjoy the game less if forced to roleplay characters they do not identify with and whose actions they have difficulting portraying. Ultimately, Dungeons and Dragons is a game, not a chore. Playing it should not be a chore, so people who don't want to play characters with vastly less intelligence than themselves should not be forced to.

how really does the eye color of your character contribute to the game?

Really shadzar? Not every customizable option has to have a mechanical benefit. The game is about exploring a world. People in the world have have eye colours. Therefore, the player character has an eye colour. If it doesn't do anything except add to the description, why stop people from picking their hair and eye colours? Do you give all your NPCs descriptions like "Human Male, unarmoured" because those are the only game mechanical things the players can see, or do they have an actual description? If other creatures in the world can be described in terms of things that don't affect the mechanics, why not the player characters?

more fun to me would be getting exactly what i want as a present because i have a use for that rather than some moron picking something out that has no idea what it would be.

This was a metaphor for character generation. It is more fun to roll all 18s than it is to be given all 18s for free because if you roll for them you might not get them. Similarly, if someone buys you something it might not be what you want, but you're very happy when it is. It's the same with character generation systems.

Extending that metaphor, the problem with 3d6 straight down the line is that it will almost never give you what you want. It's the equivalent of giving someone a completely random thing off the shelf from Walmart - they might get the thing they wanted, they might get something cool and unexpected, or they might get a potato. People like getting what they asked for. People like being surprised. Most people don't like getting potatoes for their birthday. Other ways of choosing what to buy (i.e. other attribute generation schemes) preserve the surprise without giving people potatoes (attributes they can't use). It gets even worse when you buy more than one gift (create more than one character) this way: people start asking why you gave one friend a new video game and the other a bag of carrot sticks.

EDIT: Replaced a redundant sentence.

[Whipstitch]

"Munchkin go home."

the only response you should get to what you said.

Cries of munchkin are part of the problem rather than any sort of solution. Putting someone in a vague "Roll until you're happy... but we'll all be quietly judging you the whole time," scenario is just a pack of needless bullshit. Why leave people in the dark and throw hissy fits like that when you can simply build a point buy system or shared pool of stat arrays that enforces your standards without any mindgames? Personally, I'm fine having mediocre stats, I just don't want to feel jerked around in the process of getting them.

[ishy]

Honestly, I'd prefer not having stats at all over rolling to see if I win / lose at D&D while creating my character.

The only thing I'd miss are Strength checks (which currently don't really work anyway).

Hate rolling for hit-points too.

[infected slut princess]

No way, real men roll for their hit points. FACT: Dudes who roll their hit points get hotter girlfriends.

[shadzar]

also a problem is you are trying to play a competitive game.

No... I prefer games where everyone can contribute in a relatively equal way.

how? are you talking solely combat? do you understand D&D?

Fighter was the damage dealer/taker
Wizard was the MacGuyver
Cleric, undead destroyer/healer/information gatherer
Thief, scout/bugler/etc

they all contribute equally to the game, jsut different areas of expertise, thus a class based system where the classes are built on archetypes.

then, dont be stupid. know when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut.

Once again, this is a matter of fun for me. Choosing not to participate because I think my character would be unable to participate still means not participating.

this is D&D, not fucked up elementary school where everyone moves on to the next grade with "no child left behind" and half of them end up not able to do anything in middle school because the system actually failed to teach them anything. it isnt there to pamper you. you have to learn when it is your time to participate, and when to shut up and let others. when you play a character with an INT lower than your own, then shut the fuck up sometime and let others do things, unless you are playing a group-think metagame. you said you have the problem of not knowing when to keep your mouth shut. realizing you have a problem is the first step to correcting it. now take the next steps and try shutting up and dont metagame all the time.

not at YOUR table and game, but there does have to be a limit for the rules themselves unless you just want a bloated game with 1000 splatbooks.

how really does the eye color of your character contribute to the game? are you looking for a +1 bonus to some dice roll for it? do the other players really give a shit about your eye color?

none of the things you are talking about in this section have anything to do with ability scores, so why are you even saying them?

First off, there are differences between mechanical differences and 'fluff' differences. Eye color is fluff. I don't expect a mechanical benefit to choosing blue eyes over brown eyes. But I do expect that I'm able to choose whether my character has brown eyes or blue. While it may be purely cosmetic, it absolutely matters to me. I enjoy having a particular character as I envision the character to be. Now, I could try to pretend that my STR 3 fighter is actually really strong (say, I'm envisioning Arnold Swarzeneggar as Conan in my head) but every time I do poorly on a STR check, there will be an increasing amount of cognitive dissonance that will interfere with my enjoyment. Fortunately, I can avoid it by having a character that is ACTUALLY STRONG when I imagine playing a strong character.

have you tried playing D&D. you seem to be another Fuchs that only wants to play his fop swashbuckler with a rapier and the DM owes him a magical rapier because that is his narrow minded character concept. D&D isnt a game of making your fantasy novel character Drizzt clone. i swear this has been gone over before.....NEXT!

more fun to me would be getting exactly what i want as a present because i have a use for that rather than some moron picking something out that has no idea what it would be.

You failed your reading comprehension check there.

no, you failed your relevancy check. i choose shit for myself. i dont take gifts from people and would highly be pissed someone giving me a gift. there are people out there that just dont like gifts. learn this, and never try using that analogy again as a global constant.

The game wouldn't be fun if there was no chance of failure. It's also no fun if there is no chance of success. It's a balancing act. 3d6 is too close to 'no chance of success' for my taste.

now THIS is a perfect answer to the initial question, it explains what you want from the ability scores. you feel that your odds of getting something that could succeed is little to none, and you want better than normal averages maybe even better than 50:50 chance of success.

The chance of failure versus the chance of success should depend on the action in question.

this last statement of yours is exactly correct, the problem then is...

the action should not be decided based upon your scores or the mechanics. see the thing in my signature? "Play the game, not the rules." yeah....

when you take an action, it should be because that is what YOU the player wants to try, not what is the best mechanical option to defeat the RNG your character sheet has on it. Play the game, not the rules.

[Archmage]

no, you failed your relevancy check. i choose shit for myself. i dont take gifts from people and would highly be pissed someone giving me a gift. there are people out there that just dont like gifts. learn this, and never try using that analogy again as a global constant.

People who don't read shadzar posts are missing comedy gold.

[Voss]

Sometimes. It is equally likely to be tiresome sniveling that isn't relevant (or even comprehensible) to anyone else.

[Maxus]

There's a friend of mine who asks to be linked to Shadzar heavy-threads.

And says being introduced to Rationalwiki, which he described as 'Shadzar on tap', is the best Christmas present he's gotten in a good while.